Discussion Title: Periodic lockdowns should be planned as emergency measures to fight climate change

1. Periodic lockdowns should be planned as emergency measures to fight climate change
1.1. Con: Lockdown is associated to personal restrictions, like movement, gathering, work difficulties etc and should be avoided because not appreciated by anyone
1.1.1. Pro: A lockdown leaves a significant number of people unemployed.
1.1.1.1. Pro: During the lockdown for Coronavirus, [122 million](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-52559324) people lost their jobs in the month of April.
1.1.1.2. Con: Climate change can also [increase unemployment significantly](http://www.topdad.eu/news/climate-change-can-increase-unemployment).
1.1.2. Pro: Lockdowns are against the [human right to freedom of movement](https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/). \(article 13\).
1.1.3. Con: It could be argued that the consequences of climate change could create more personal restrictions than periodic lockdowns.
1.1.3.1. Pro: Climate change is [increasingly becoming](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02560-0?shared-article-renderer) one of the main reasons for migration.
1.1.3.2. Pro: An increasing number of "[climate refugees](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-climate-crisis-migration-and-refugees/)" are expected to create a large-scale human migration due to resource scarcity as well as to extreme weather events as a result of climate change.
1.1.3.3. Con: Because of the fact that the consequences of both the lockdowns and climate change imply personal restrictions, those restrictions shouldn't be put on the population but rather on the [businesses that contribute to climate change](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change).
1.2. Pro: Lockdowns due to COVID-19 has reduced pollution levels. Collaborating on global periodic lockdowns could help tackle climate change. The pandemic taught us that big challenges need a collaboration approach
1.2.1. Con: Covid-19 lockdowns had side-effects that benefited the environment, but are not what a targeted policy to benefit the environment by restricting the economy should look like.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Many activities have a vastly different cost-benefit in terms of covid risk than in terms of environmental harm, for example, boarding a crowded bus.
1.2.2. Pro: In China, carbon emissions were down an estimated[18%](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus-causing-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/)between early February and mid-March due to falls in coal consumption and industrial output.
1.2.3. Pro: Like the [UK's government](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52488134), many want to take this opportunity to promote low-carbon industries as part of their economic stimulus.
1.2.4. Con: For countries to collaborate on global periodic lockdowns, the consequent economic issues should also be tackled collaboratively.
1.3. Con: Periodic lockdowns will have a negative effect on global economies.
1.3.1. Pro: The lockdown following the coronavirus pandemic has had a [detrimental effect](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51706225) on the economy. Periodic lockdowns would have a similar effect.
1.3.1.1. Con: Global markets would be able to prepare for periodic lockdowns in a way the pandemic did not allow.
1.3.2. Pro: Markets would have to raise the prices of their goods and services in order to cover the costs of lost revenue during the lockdowns.
1.3.3. Con: If periodic lockdowns are planned, markets will have a chance to prepare for potential impacts.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Products and services can be promoted online to replace brick-and-mortal sales.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Online shopping is [proving](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/as-coronavirus-pushes-more-grocery-shoppers-online-stores-struggle-with-demand.html) to be a good way for brick-and-mortal stores to stay in business during the coronavirus pandemic. This is a way for markets to stay consistent if periodic lockdowns are mandated.
1.3.3.1.2. Con: Online shopping contributes to [climate decline](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/click-click-emit-the-carbon-cost-of-online-shopping/). A periodic lockdown would increase this impact.
1.3.4. Con: The fight against climate change is more important than the impact on global economies as it could lead to the [planet becoming uninhabitable.](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/05/13/climate-change-uninhabitable-earth-david-wallace-wells)
1.3.4.1. Con: The title of the book that the linked article is about is "uninhabitable Earth", but the author is quoted saying things like "a global GDP 30% smaller than it would be without climate change" in the same linked article. The title is hyperbole, and not a literal prediction that the Earth will become uninhabitable.
1.3.5. Con: Businesses could adapt to lockdown measures.
1.3.5.1. Pro: Yes, 4 day work week, with 2 days work from home
1.3.5.2. Pro: Businesses can ask employees to work remotely.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: Even if Covid-19 lockdowns are not anymore active, many employees are [still working remotely](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/working-from-home-coronavirus-workers-future-of-work/).
1.3.5.2.1.1. Pro: The shift from the office to working remotely after the initial covid-19 outbreaks has been refered to as the "[new working-from-home economy](https://news.stanford.edu/2020/06/29/snapshot-new-working-home-economy/)" which is likely to continue in the future.
1.3.5.2.1.2. Con: Even if some employees can work remotely, there are other jobs that are essential to the economies and [can't be performed remotely](https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/coronavirus-office-work-health-safety.html).
1.3.5.2.2. Con: Many businesses are [unable to work remotely.](https://mashable.com/article/tech-companies-work-from-home-coronavirus/?europe=true)
1.3.5.3. Pro: With many businesses having experience operating during the Coronavirus lockdown, it is likely that they will be better prepared for future lockdowns.
1.3.5.4. Con: Although businesses may be able to adapt to lockdown measures, it is likely that businesses would perform better without these restrictions to them and their customers.
1.3.6. Pro: Lockdown would mean that consumers have to remain at home.
1.4. Pro: The key point is to progressively slow down energy-intensive economies so that overall emissions can be steadily curbed. Intermittent lockdowns could be helpful in the first phases as a quick effect solution, but then they should be dropped.
1.4.1. Con: In order to progressively slow down energy-intensive economies, many of the key players of those economies would have to be willing to lose profits.
1.4.1.1. Pro: [Russia's economy](https://phys.org/news/2020-07-energy-intensive-economies-survive-globe-ramps.html) depends on fossil fuel resources as the largest exporter. A global decision to stop using fossil fuel would require Russia to agree on losing part of its economy.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: The United States also produces [about 18% of the world’s total oil](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/mapped-fossil-fuel-production-by-country/).
1.4.1.1.2. Con: China, which is also an important player in the global economy, has reduced its coal consumption from [70% in 2011 to 59% in 2018](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/mapped-fossil-fuel-production-by-country/).
1.4.1.2. Con: Certain places like Europe have established a step-by-step plan for energy-intensive industries to [reach climate neutrality](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652717/IPOL_STU\(2020\)652717_EN.pdf) by 2050. \(p.3\)
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: Some [specific funds](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652717/IPOL_STU\(2020\)652717_EN.pdf) to allocate financial incentives for the next generation of technologies projects which support low-carbon technologies is planned by the EU. \(p.61\)
1.4.1.2.2. Con: It has been claimed that although the intentions of the EU's climate neutrality are good, it might be ineffective as [Member States have no obligation](https://energy-cities.eu/the-european-climate-law-is-it-enough-to-get-to-climate-neutrality/) to reach on their own.
1.4.2. Pro: [Lockdowns](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/) could put global economies at risk.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Lockdowns could destroy the [touristic sector](https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/18/life-after-lockdown-will-covid-19-change-the-way-we-travel-forever), which is the main economic engine of many countries.
1.4.2.1.1. Con: Mass tourism has also been accused of [destroying local economies](https://www.trevorhuxham.com/2018/09/mass-tourism-destroying-spain.html) within countries.
1.4.2.1.2. Pro: [Spain](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/27/second-lockdown-could-destroy-spains-devastated-economy/), which is heavily dependent on tourism, has seen its economy plummet after the lockdowns.
1.5. Pro: If the largest greenhouse emissions contributors’ countries, which are also the richest, planned coordinated lockdowns, a strong pollution reduction would occur and would give some more time to a progressive conversion of the economies to a more sustainable model. See links [china co2 reduction](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-temporarily-reduced-chinas-co2-emissions-by-a-quarter). and[energy consumption decline during pandemic](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-cut-co2-from-europes-electricity-system-by-39-per-cent?utm_content=buffer245b7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
1.5.1. Pro: As we need shock measures to slow down the continuous heating of the planet, even unpopular actions may be needed. Data give a strong indication : in large cities the greenhouse emissions are -50% ...[Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute study](https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Air_pollution_remains_low_as_Europeans_stay_at_home)
1.5.2. Con: The [economic impact](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41885-020-00066-z) of those planned coordinated lockdown could deplete governments from the financial injections that would be needed for a progressive transition to more sustainable models.
1.6. Con: Lockdowns are unpolitical and impractical measures that are hated by population and are seen as a violation of basic living rights. They will not work and they will make the objectives of climate change improvement less supported.
1.6.1. Con: Climate change should be addressed regardless of whether the population agree with the policies used to address the issue.
1.6.2. Pro: If the people view lockdown as a violation of basic living rights, it is unlikely they will follow the demands of lockdown.
1.6.3. Con: Many people recognized that lockdown was a [collective sacrifice](https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/sacrifice-remembered-lockdown) for the greater good during the Coronavirus pandemic. The same logic could be used to justify periodic lockdowns for other collective concerns such as climate change.
1.6.4. Pro: Only authoritarian governments can effectively apply such a kind of restrictive measures and will work only if and when people feel threatened; therefore, unless supposing a spread of autocracies, people will not follow and results will be poor.